I Minkowski metric and proper time interpretation

msumm21
Messages
247
Reaction score
28
TL;DR Summary
I'm trying to learn general relativity, but misunderstanding how the metric implies that time appears to pass slower for something near a heavy mass, as viewed from something far away
Using an example of 1 space dimension and 1 time dimension, consider the metric ##d\tau^2 = a dt^2 - dx^2## near a heavy mass (##a>1##).

From what I've read a clock ticks slower near a heavy mass, as viewed from an observer far away. A clock tick would be representative of ##d\tau## right (not ##dt##)? If so, then my confused understanding is below.

If ##a## is large, then small ##dt## results in large ##d\tau##. If the far away observer's ##d\tau## is approximately ##dt##, then his clock tick, say ##dt=1## corresponds to ##d\tau >> 1## near the mass. My interpretation of this is that the clock near the mass ticks ##d\tau >> dt## ticks (it ticks more than the clock far from the mass), and hence the clock near the mass moves faster. I realize this is wrong, but not clear what part is wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your basic assumption is wrong: ##a < 1## for the Schwarzschild metric.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and vanhees71
The book I'm reading (General Relativity: The Theoretical Minimum by Susskind) says the metric is approximately ##d\tau^2 = (1+2gy)dt^2 - dy^2## where the grav potential is ##gy## but yes I see this doesn't jive with stuff I see on Wikipedia. I must have misunderstood what this metric was supposed to be in the first place. Does anyone know what this metric is?
 
msumm21 said:
I must have misunderstood what this metric was supposed to be in the first place. Does anyone know what this metric is?
This is a local metric, only valid in a small region. The reference is not a clock at infinity, but a clock at ##y=0##. Clocks at higher ##y## will be faster and clocks at lower ##y## will be slower compared to the reference clock.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes PeterDonis, vanhees71, msumm21 and 2 others
Dale said:
This is a local metric, only valid in a small region. The reference is not a clock at infinity, but a clock at y=0. Clocks at higher y will be faster and clocks at lower y will be slower compared to the reference clock.
Oh yes I think I'm getting it now, thanks!
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...

Similar threads

Back
Top